Amadeus Schmidt wrote:
> But I can't locate the benefit in adjusting our body's machinery
> so, that it's forced to burn it's fuel incomplete
> just for the sake to achieve a higher need.
Never said this was so. To continue your analogy, it's machinery
noticing that it has extra fuel and dumping it before it does
damage. Extra fuel gets in there because the machinists puts it there
for some (not necessarily practical) reason. Getting out of the
analogies - the body detects extra food and discards it. The extra
food got there not because of any need but because I shoved it in
my mouth (and as I said before it had nothing to do with hunger).
> Would one live on meat alone to get the 2400 kcal,
> would provide about 700% of RDA proteins.
> (with meat-olone a over-supply of protein *is* necessary, because
> very much protein is a needed to end up as the necessary glucose,
> and to catch up with some vitamins in supply).
To quote an ex-president: here you go again. RDA protein requirements
are not really adequate (just as vitamin C RDA is ridiculous). And
after adaptation to a low carb diet you only need about 40gm glucose
per day. Since even on a very restricted low carb diet you'll typically
get at least 20gms of carbs, and a few more will come from fat, you'll
need less than 20gms of glucose from protein. Hardly 'an over-supply',
considering that more than half of protein gets converted to glucose
even if you are eating just adequate protein.
> >Your assumption that I might be missing something is
> >essentially rooted in your belief that my desire for or liking of
> >food must be diminished as my biological need diminishes.
> >I have not seen this
> >to be the case to an absolute degree .....
> I can imagine, that there are factors other than
> biological needs that influence food desires.
> However what i experience day to day, appears to me mostly like a
> really ravenous appetite on *energy*
> (most often on every type of sweets).
> Seems as would these sweets not really satisfy the hunger
> but rather be deposited as fat.... meanwhile still on low body
> temperature and low energy level.
It feels to you this way because you are NOT on a low carb diet. Get on
it and you'll see the difference. (and I don't mean for a few days,
you have to do it at least for a month to see what it'll be like in the
long term).
> >The difference is that on
> >low carb it doesn't seem to affect me badly, either in terms of
> >gaining weight or in terms of my health.
> I whish you, that this persists on the long run too.
3.5 years and going. A lot longer than anything else I have tried.
> I'm not shure in which direction you are argueing.
> All this thiamin points towards a diet of natural and unmodified
> and fresh items - like paleo does. It emphasizes several seeds
> but it's also found in some meats (pork...).
> IMO a real good reason for paleo-nutrition - as i view it
> and as you might view it too.
I am arguing that thiamin is NOT the answer to obesity. Its lack may be
a contributor, but if it was indeed thiamin, it would have been very easy to
check, and would have been shown to be so by now. I was not treating
this line of argument as either pro or against paleo, low carb, high
carb or anything else. Just didn't agree with your thiamin ideas as
a major explanation of obesity.
Ilya
PS
>>> remember the Dr.Stoll reference?
>>Sorry, no. Who is he and what is the reference?
>Searching more stuff about the Krebs Cycle, energy yielding pathways
>and about thiamin, i came about that Dr.Stoll's web site.
>I include it again at the bottom.
I think you may have forgotten it.
|
